Does Catholicism offer anything to Modern Science?

[TheAtheist]

Good evening to you all.

Let me first preface the question above with an explanation. I’m asking this as a person who isn’t of your faith, however I am by no means here to instigate the rather shallow and pedantic debating that goes on in the internet – frankly I tend to get annoyed by it. That and I’m pretty sure that most people who engage in such informal debating tend to do it more as a form of entertainment at best, or self-ego building at worst.

I’m here to ask a deceptively simple-looking question: What can Catholicism offer modern Science?

Now – this is going to be a long folks, so anyone who has pre-made answers for this type of thing might want to sit back and read all the caveats I have. For in the end, what I’m looking for is a discussion about a relationship (of a constructive sort) between reason and faith.

1.) Let me put this one out their immediately – I am by no means implying that Catholicism is under an obligation to offer modern Science anything at all. That would be an incorrect assumption – namely that Catholicism has to “work” for Science.

What I’m more interested in is capturing the dynamics of a relationship.

2.) I’m not referring to Ethics. Much has already been said about that topic, and frankly its usually the type of thing that gets beaten to death in public forums and the media.

3.) What I am aiming for, what I am most interested in, is on the inspirational level.

Now you must be asking – what the heck does he mean by that?

Let me paint a picture. There’s this vicious historical narrative that has been popularized that can only characterize the relationship between faith and reason in terms of violent antagonism. Formally, this is known as the “warfare thesis.”

It is, by most current academic standards, complete and utter tripe. The idea you can characterize the relationship between two vast bodies of knowledge over hundreds of years in one sweeping generalization is a horror to the professional historian. More often than not, people who engage in such “vivisection” of the truth do so for polemical purposes – be this the radical evangelical preacher who believes Satan invented Evolution or Richard Dawkins on one of his bad days. And I want to state immediately – I refuse entertain such questions – there’s probably 100+ threads devoted to it on this website anyway.

So that’s the last caveat, if you’ve been reading through all this and if you can accept all that I’ve said then your probably the type of person I want to engage in conversation with – so let’s get to it shall we, to the heart of the matter.

Once upon a time, there was indeed a very good push/pull creative tension between Catholicism (and the Orthodox Church as well) and those who engaged in Natural Philosophy and later on Science.

This clearly evident in the first provocative statements made by St. Justin Martyr on the nature of Truth, to the seminal theological writings of St. Augustine, the speculative cosmological thinking of Thierry of Chartres, the empirical thought of William of Conches, the naturalist works of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas’ systematic philosophy (that’s 2 for the Dominicans), the writings of Roger Bacon (1 for the Franciscans), and the whole breadth of Cartesian-inspired Jesuit Science in the 16th and 17th centuries.

And then……it all kind of tanked. You can see the sad sordid history of that in “Roman Catholicism and Modern Science” – link provided for your amusement.

books.google.com/books?id=5tieP7-FuYsC&dq=Roman+Catholicism+and+Modern+Science&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=4ZoRBcsjth&sig=H-_G-ZNQ8X4BHLvo2A3k3ZOxJbg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PRA1-PR7,M1

The external perspective tends to glorify this as one of those seminal moments in history where Reason banishes the foolishness of superstition, we’re on the march to modernity, blah blah blah blah.

But I’m here for an internal perspective, for those of the faith, and I’m asking “What the heck happened to you guys?!”

I’m going to draw on the theological opinion of a man who seems to have had some great importance to your previous Pope and the current one. He was a theologian by the name of Henri De Lubac and I believe he was acquainted with both men. He wrote in a volume entitled “Catholicism” that the secularized world was the outcome of basically Catholics and Protestants “surrendering the field” to materialists such as myself – namely by placing the workings of the divine completely outside of the natural world to avoid any sense of scrutiny. Many of the Protestant sects tend to be far more complicit in this act due to their prioritization of Faith over Reason.

Now I’m putting you folks on the spot precisely because you’re the Catholics. “Fides et Ratio” right? Faith and Reason. You’re the guys out their, up front, not hiding behind Tradition and cherry picking the results of scientific work like the Orthodox Churches, nor like so many of the Evangelical groups who outright say that people such as myself are outright liars, pawns of Lucifer, blah blah blah.

IE: Even though I don’t agree with your faith, I acknowledge and respect the contributions you’ve collectively made – which is why I’m asking.

And I would go so far to say as that creative tension made us better. Think about it – even if your ideas were 100% incorrect (and I am not claiming that they are – take this as a hypothesis), you forced those who held opposing viewpoints to think, rethink, re-examine, and test their ideas about the natural world.

To me, that’s lovely, that’s beautiful. That’s interesting, useful, and far far far more engaging than the simplistic “Your Immoral/Stupid vs. hahaha…Flying Spaghetti Monster” blah blah blah.

 

[TheAtheist]

So back to the original question: Does Catholicism have anything to offer Modern Science?

I can’t answer that – I’m not a Catholic. It just seems from this outside perspective that the well has run dry. It looks like all the intellectual resources of your Church have gone toward considerations of an ethical or political dimension. Theology also seems to have sealed itself off from discussing any matters outside of theology…and some postmodern philosophy.

Beyond ascribing final causation to your Deity, there just doesn’t seem to be any room left to talk about Nature.

So is this it? Is this the end? Are we now all doomed to listen to the continual childish dronings that have completely dominated the dialogue of faith and reason?

If this is the way things go, then this is the way things go – but I’ll say that it is rather sad.

 

[TheAtheist]

I feel also compelled to offer a counterexample. I do this to silence critics who would say that the current intellectual climate and base assumptions of the opposing viewpoints in question do not allow for any such creative sparring to occur.

My example of a religion that is enjoying a creative dialogue with modern Science is…Tibetan Buddhism.

Caveats: No - i am not a Tibetan Buddhist. No i’m not a Buddhist. No i do not ascribe to their viewpoints.

With that all out of the way - i’m not talking about that Pseudo-Buddhism adopted by New Agers or atheists who are looking for some sort of system that they can essentially plunder for their own uses - that would be the phenomena described as “Protestant Buddhism” or more pejoratively “Buddhism without the ********.”

I am talking about a tradition with a highly established doctrine/belief system/philosophy that just so happens to have investigated a phenomena that has all of the Neuroscience people going gaagaa over.

Ever since the Chinese takeover of Tibet and the flight of the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, the Dalai Lama has made it a point to engage the modern world and modern science in particular. And boy has it been a wild ride.

Even before, in the works of Physicists like Einstein and Heisenberg, you already see that inspirational creativity that i was talking about between Buddhist philosophy and Quantum Physics.

But the true explosion of creativity occurred between the encounter of “Contemplative Science” as they like to phrase describe their meditational practices and Neurobiology.

Which resulted in well…this: mindandlife.org/

Now, PLEASE bear in mind, i’m not saying that we’re accepting everything that they are saying. I’m not saying that they’ve validated Reincarnation for instance. Nor is there some mass movement toward becoming Scientific Buddhists.

But they gave us that creative tension. Their giving the old Neurobiological “We are all Meat Machines” viewpoint a run for its money. The have a 4,000 year old psychological system that is geared toward pragmatic results and sooo totally different from what the West has generated, a very interesting metaphysical philosophy, and a practice that goes with it - namely their meditational techniques that bring about rather interesting mental states.

And their “theology” (not sure that’s the right word for it) has rigorously catalogued and analyzed these things.

Do you get why all the Neuroscientists are going “ooh ahh”?

Cause we have something to talk about with each other, something interesting about reality.

Now, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not interpret this as “Be more Buddhist Catholics” cause that’s just well…stupid.

I’m just trying to illustrate what a positive relationship is like.

 

[kevinfraser]

Greetings, TheAtheist

I don’t plan to engage in a discussion, but Catholicism does not and never has claimed any competency in science. So your question appears to me similar to asking “Does philosophy offer anything to medicine?” It’s still a good and interesting question even if philosophy by its nature can’t cure any disease.

When extrapolating through a strict lens of materialism, the question is also used as the battering-ram end of this argument: Science is absolute Truth, religion is mere subjectivism, therefore Religion is false. We’ve all encountered that attempted argument, and you can find thousands of examples here. Tellingly, it opposes the famous, yet 180 degree backward “cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) of poor, ‘wrong-way’ Descartes.

That the Vatican, and even some Catholic universities fund raw, scientific research comes as a bit of a shock to most people, to the extent that they generally start off by claiming it’s a lie, with no particular knowledge to back up the accusation. Beware of that trained knee-jerk cultural indoctrination reaction, because no matter what you think of Catholicism, truth is also found in currency quantities spent.

The Church does choose science that relates to her interests: A world-famous cardiologist to spend a year investigating the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, for example. That’s the kind of hard-science, realistic challenge to which the Church subjects every single claim of ‘a miracle’. But there seems to be a “common sense” that every specious claim of a “miracle” is simply ushered into Church law without so much as a review. Again, a cultural indoctrination against Catholicism that is propagated without regard to fact to attempt inculcating the notion that reason is incompatible with faith. I beg you, don’t be suckered.

An interesting issue occurs in the most recent, and credible scholarship on historical science: Archaeological engineers are now quite certain that Trappist monks who were killed off as a function of Henry VIII’s confiscation of all Church-owned property in England were on the verge of developing a revolutionary forge that would likely have brought the industrial age some 350 years closer. Had the monks in this particular monastery not been summarily executed one day by Henry’s mounted apes, within a year or so all European Trappist monasteries would have developed similar forges through their annual Abbots’ conferences.This knowledge and needed materials would have been given freely to peasants across Europe, and the history of feudalism could have taken a dramatic turn.

Today, Catholicism argues for science, and activists of all stripes insist on changing the subject to religion as a the stock response. At your next opportunity, try it yourself and see:

Tens of thousands of people have been cured by adult stem cell therapies. Not one has even been helped by embryonic stem cell therapies, and the most optimistic predictions are that it will be 50 years if ever before embryonic therapies help anything. Tell that to almost anyone, and you can measure the time it takes for them to start talking about (your) religious beliefs in single-digit seconds. They no longer want to hear about science, but (your) religion. Seriously, try it.

The other day, a famous British doctor left England for France because of what he called “England’s obsession with embryonic stem cells.” He went to France because unlike the UK, it’s possible to get funding to expand adult-stem cell therapies that already cure people. He said France has a more “reasonable” atmosphere in that regard. Britain will have nothing to do with such “reason” – on a legislated national policy level, no less. I don’t know what this doctor’s religion is, but Catholicism would encourage the adult stem cell therapy that works today, not the alternative. Is that Catholicism offering anything to Modern Science?

I’m not a scientist, but I have a relative with an organ transplant. In her case, there was no possible alternative. But why anyone would risk a life of being chained to anti-rejection drugs, if a therapy with a fraction of the cost and risk, that can’t possibly cause rejection issues – by its very nature – were available instead, is fully beyond me.

In the interest of directing you towards the objective rather than the anecdotal, and equally in the interest of the most current research, may I suggest some open-minded reading: Thomas Woods’ “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”
tinyurl.com/6hndbt (Amazon)

The book’s joyous purpose is to celebrate and inform of the Church’s… not so much evidence as… abject authorship of the principles we take for granted as “the West.” It does so by drawing on a source that has not yet found its’ way into school curricula, and perhaps never will; current research into scientific history. Because Woods’ premise is so statistically unpopular (Catholicism-yielding-any-material-good), reading the likes of Dawkins and not Woods isn’t so much an oversight as it is planned intellectual obsolescence.

You have spent much time thinking about this, TheAtheist. If you are interested in truth, I offer you this reading suggestion to make you a better-informed thinker than Dawkins and his ilk. Give yourself the benefit of giving Woods a fair hearing. If you don’t fear Truth, don’t fear reading Woods’ book.

If you consider “Modern Science” to be Truth, and you recognize that Catholicism claims no particular expertise in science, then it would be reasonable to reformulate your question as:

“Does Catholicism inform of Truth?”

This is a provocative conclusion, but I’m assuming you came here to challenge yourself as well as others. Sharpening your question this way would make it germane to the Church’s only claimed competencies: infallible teaching on faith and morals. I’m assuming you favor fairness.

 

[Fran65]

As a Catholic psychologist who has read a bit about (and previously practiced) buddhism for several years before returning to Catholicism; I can perhaps say one or two things in response to your posts.

I am familiar with the relationship that you describe between neuroscientists and buddhism. One of my university lecturers was a buddhist and I took his course on ‘Mind in Context’, that led to a decade (on and off) of reading, thinking and practicing. There is a huge literature, both popular and academic, dealing with this area. For neuroscientists the interest seems to be in the extensive and systematic introspection and the reporting of changes in levels of consciousness; as well as the association between various measure of mental wellbeing and the practice of meditation (which does not have to be buddhist btw). Buddhism, by teaching empiricism has close links with the scientific method and many scientists are attracted because it does not appear to conflict with their ‘philosophy’. It also has to be said from a sociological point of view that buddhism was and remains ‘sexy’ and ‘hip’. If one talks about and is involved in buddhism then one is associated with people like Capra, Kerouac, Bateson, Edelman et al. Many scientists look to improve the image of the discipline and how better than to get involved with buddhism and the Dalai Llama. So I would argue that it is not only the methods and knowledge that buddhism has that has led to this association.

Catholicism does not have the advantage of being seen as ‘sexy’. ‘hip’ or ‘cool’. Secular society does not fete Pope Benedict the way that it fetes the Dalai Llama, so it is unlikely that conferences at which the Pope is invited to speak will not have the same kind of attention and impact as those attended by the Dalai Llama. If anything, declaring oneself as Catholic in a scientific community can be disadvantageous to one’s career and reputation amongst one’s peers - just as it does in politics (UK). Catholicism has an image ‘problem’ in secular society that buddhism does not. I’m not going to repeat the reasons why - we all know them.

In addition, Catholicism does not pretend to have arcane knowledge of consciousness that is only available to serious and lifelong practitioners. It does not encourage the focus on ‘self’ that is so attractive to neuroscientists, focusing as they do on the contents of the skull. It does not teach complex, sophisticated methods for exploring one’s own consciousness into which one can disappear for one’s whole lifetime and teaches instead a way of reaching out beyond our own limitations.

You have excluded from discussion many of the things that I consider to be offered to modern science. Whilst it may appear that Catholicism seeks to hold back so called ‘progress’ in particular areas or that the ‘well has run dry’ as you put it; I believe her to be right in her teachings. I also think that living in a secualr society that is increasingly antagonistic to faith means that we simply don’t hear about the Church’s contributions. Have you heard of the Vatican Observatory for example? See below:

clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html

 

[TheAtheist]

Whoo! Fran…you got my brain going!

Thanks for your response and your insight.

First things first - i’m more than well aware of the problems a Catholic faces in the scientific community. And yes, you folks suffer from a horrible horrible PR problem.

I always found it kind of funny, but since your the most logically lucid of the Christian denominations, everyone outside of them seems to want to blame you for the actions of your “cousins” so to speak. Probably because its possible to speak in terms of an institution and a legacy of thought than well…random preacher in the middle of nowhere whose decided to interpret the Bible however he pleases.

So not only do you have a PR problem, whatever the wacky evangelicals do also kind of sticks to you as well.

I bring up Buddhism simply as an example - as i stated before i’m not saying you should be like them. I just wanted to show a point of positiveinteraction.

Don’t get me wrong, at least you folks don’t have a Negative point of interaction - ie: the Creationist’s Discovery Institute. www.discovery.org/

But when i read statements like this:

I don’t plan to engage in a discussion, but Catholicism does not and never has claimed any competency in science.

It saddens me…because once upon a time you folks WERE the competent ones.

And i find this exceedingly bizzare that I’m the one saying it!

Look, if Buddhism’s big thing is the Mind (or some sects of Buddhism), i would argue that Catholicism’s big thing has been Physics/Cosmology.

Case in point with your reference to the Vatican Observatory, which is a modern outcome of over 2,000 years of thinking about such matters. Kudos!

Your forebearers were DARING about these things. They were more than willing to pick up questions of Ontological, Metaphysical, or Epistemological importance.

But to paraphrase a commentator from First Things, firstthings.com/, which is a “Theology Meets the World” ecumenical journal with very strong Catholic influences - “Theology has contracted.”

Don’t get me wrong - there are tons of Catholic intellectuals. Many of them doing many good things in the fields of humanities, social science etc.

But there’s a level of quiet now coming from the domains of science and natural philosophy. There seems to be less of a drive to even broach questions of this sort at all.

You have excluded from discussion many of the things that I consider to be offered to modern science.

The only domain of philosophy i excluded was Ethics. I did that for a very simple reason.

Let’s personify things for a second. I go out and discover/make something/do something. I come back home and tell you about it. You pass judgment over whether what i did was right or wrong.

Now think about that for a second - what kind of relationship is that?

I do → You react —> I do —> You React. etc. etc.

That wasn’t always the nature of the relationship.

Once upon time you folks INSPIRED.

Now its like you’ve decided to erect the great Gouldian NOMA barrier (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Nonoverlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29) and refuse to come out and play anymore.

Leaving us with your “unruly cousins.”

 

[kevinfraser]

Hi TheAtheist

I perhaps should have been more clear. I have a family and I wrote my piece for you in the middle of the night. Not engaging in discussion is about lacking the necessary time for thoughtful writing, nothing else. I’m sorry I led you to think I was playing a game of some sort.

Your question indicates that you wonder if Catholicism purports to offer something to modern science. I am reminded of a simple study made some years ago and written up in a major medical journal. In the study, the vital signs of patients in a wide variety of hospitals over a period of years were measured before, during and after reciting the Rosary, aloud – in Latin – with a Catholic priest. The patients were both Catholic and non-Catholic, but the results were remarkably uniform: slowed, regulated, calmed and steadied. This effect was easily attributed to the breathing regulation imposed by speaking aloud the repetitive patterns of the prayer in Latin, in a call-response pattern with the Priest (called, in Catholic mysticism, ‘praying in two choirs’).

What the study of course could not measure, (nor was it considered in the study) was the effect of Sanctifying Grace - which is taught to be multiplied in some way by the practice of praying in two choirs. Properly expressed, Sanctifying Grace is a share in the life of the divine. It’s not quantifiable like a breathing rate or a bank transfer, but when the science presents unanswered questions, and you are asking what Catholicism offers to modern science, doesn’t it seem scientific to look at what Catholicism DOES purport to offer; the promise of a share in the life of the divine?

Asking to quantify for the purposes of science if Catholicism offers anything to modern science is probably not going to produce hard science because it can’t produce hard measurements.

The Church does not offer science to the world as a competency. Just because the Vatican observatory produces world-class scientific research does not mean that official Church teaching includes a chapter on Astronomy. The Church doesn’t seek ownership or even credit for scientific discovery because it’s outside her purview. She does however seek to foster interest and progress in science precisely because it can produce material goods that can benefit all humanity.

You could boil it down like this: no other religion is more about the full person of Jesus than the Catholic religion. Atheists should account for the power of faith even if they don’t subscribe to it themselves, if only to avoid omitting a key variable from the equation?

Otherwise, in the study, other repetitive recitations of texts could have had the same effects on patients. The question is why does the Rosary produce such results better than other repetitive verbal patterns?

Come to think of it, I can’t think of a clearer illustration of Catholicism offering something to modern science. Catholicism offers an explanation that is expressly not of science. But it’s science’s job to figure out the scientific reasons, not Catholicism’s.

 

[Spirithound]

But when i read statements like this:

It saddens me…because once upon a time you folks WERE the competent ones.

I can see two distinct questions here that I think need to be articulated. The first is in your title, “Does Catholicism offer anything to Modern Science?” and this was the question that Kevin was referring to. Catholicism is a religion, and its area of expertise can extend to theology, philosophy, morals, and perhaps a few others.

The second question is the one that you started to address in your post: “What do Catholics have to offer to Modern Science?” Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with most of the people you mentioned in your original post, but Thierry of Chartres was a cosmologist, and he was a Catholic, but he was not Catholicism.

I think one area where Catholicism can contribute to society is in the understanding and “application” so to speak, of sexual activity. For example, sex is the strongest bond that can be formed between humans. The Catholic Church teaches against contraception in order to allow for the full realization of that bond. It teaches against pre-marital sex, and against divorce in order to ensure the psyche does not have to deal with multiple makings and ditchings of this bond. We call this chastity.

 

[buffalo]

It can continue what it has offered in the past. The Church led the scientific revolution.

She can continue to put sciences “feet to the fire” in terms of knowing about the whole universe.

It can help science know when it has entered into the philosphical realm.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Francis Collins, who led the team that cracked the human genome, is Catholic.
I had this awesome list of Catholic scientists…which I can’t find now. Collins is the only one that comes to mind right off.

 

[Equites_Christi]

TheAtheist:

First off, I just want to say you probably don’t know how grateful I am to meet an atheist who is coming from a very calm, fair and respectful point of view- during my journeys in ‘the interwebs’ I can say you are a rather rare find. Of course, not to badmouth atheists, just the behavior of the majority I’ve met.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I think it may give some answer:
Once upon a time, say the Middle Ages, the Church was really the center for intellect: math, science, arts, philosophy, etc. Therefore, it would seem that any contributions made in those fields would be “The Church’s”. As history progressed, those fields became less “owned” by the church and drifted into secular society.

So if today a Catholic scientist makes a big discovery, we wouldn’t say the Church made a discovery, we’d say a Catholic scientist did, so I’m not sure we could have a situation where we could say “The Church contributed something to modern science”- unless Benedict XVI pulled an elaboration on Einstein’s work out of his miter.
Hope this helps.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the whole idea implied by the question seems to be the assumption that the Church ever had more than a cursory relation to science.

indeed the Church has universities but it is not a university in itself,

one might ask with equal validity “does the Church have anything to offer the science of firefighting?”
the Vatican has a fire station but its not a fire station itself

does the Church in some regards practice science?, yes
is the Churches mission the advancement of science?, no

yes, some Catholics have made great strides in the sciences, they may have even been scholars, saints, physicists, priests, etc.

but a priest may also be a volunteer firefighter, the relationship between science and the church is of the same nature

we may practice science, but that is not the essence of our goal

Catholicism has nothing to offer science, even though individuals may, but then it never did, the flaw is in the assumption that science and faith have ever had a direct causal relationship.

in fact considering monotheism, in particular, the faith has never been a part of empirical science. they simply coexist in the same environment

further their are some very basic differences in the functions of both.

as an analogy i am tempted to speak of scientists like car mechanics, they gleefully dig into the engine bay finding the exact method by which the car works.

faith seeks out the owner of the factory.

my understanding of the expression ‘fide et ratio’ is in application to the understanding of G-d, in all his facets, using both faith and reason.

as to the idea that theology has cut itself off from from natural science, or that we simply ‘ascribe’ the position of first cause to G-d, is ludicrous.

theology and natural science aren’t at odds until utter empiricism becomes part of the equation. one may see the beauty of a 67’ c-10 and be in awe of G-ds creation. until someone comes along to ask about the gas mileage. complete empiricism is is the issue, not the relationship between between the two.

as to ‘ascribtion’ i have heard a great many arguments against first cause, none of which fail to terminate in the absurd proposition of infinities, demonstrated nowhere else in the practical sense that a material universe would find necessary for explanation.

indeed, i have heard m-theory explanations, hailed as a solution, which of themselves imply another infinity of universes. or membranes.

yet even in that most assured theory of the big bang we find the evidence pointing to a creator, self existent, existing outside what we would call the physical laws of the universe. the most that can truly be said is that there is some skepticism as to who that creator might be.

that too is answered in the Holy Scripture, the validity of which i explain thusly.

the Bible was written over the space of a few thousand years by people who were from different cultures, separated by thousands of miles, they didn’t even all have knowledge of the same written works, yet they all foretold a Messiah.

That Messiah was Jesus Christ, who fulfilled all the miraculous predictions in front of many witnesses, who was tortured and Crucified as foretold, who rose again, and appeared to a great many other witnesses.

what more evidence does one really need, even a skeptic of monumental proportions must be satisfied.

yet many are not. that is indeed sad.

 

[Fran65]

is the Churches mission the advancement of science?, no

I disagree with this statement to some extent.

Science is looking for answers, it looks for a more complete understanding of the universe. In doing so, it implicitly seeks to understand how God works.Science does not acknowledge this and many scientists are antagonistic to Theism in general and Catholicism in particular. This does not mean however that Catholicism does not have a lot to offer science and vice versa. Whilst it is not the central mission of Catholicism, science certainly has a role to play.

In addition, it may be that Catholic scientists may be valuable role models for the scientific community. In, for example, their respect for life, their integrity and their high personal standards. I am, of course, not saying that non catholics have fewer of these characteristics, but that Catholics have additional layers of responsibility and consequence to encourage them.

 

[Fran65]

But to paraphrase a commentator from First Things, firstthings.com/, which is a “Theology Meets the World” ecumenical journal with very strong Catholic influences - “Theology has contracted.”

Can you give examples of how theology has contracted? Do you mean that fewer people listen and engage? Do you mean that theology has less to say?

There seems to be less of a drive to even broach questions of this sort at all.

Again, do you have evidence of this or is it just an ‘impression’?

I do → You react —> I do —> You React. etc. etc.

Of course, the Church has a role in responding to scientific advancement, that is important. In addition, there is research going on, there are Catholic universities, research departments and scientists. However, the world is a very different place to the one in which the Church was the hub of academia, and whilst still playing a role, it is not ‘allowed’ if you like, to be central. Catholicism is relatively speaking a minority influence (6 billion souls, I billion Catholics) and exists in a secular world. Go figure…

Now its like you’ve decided to erect the great Gouldian NOMA barrier

I don’t think it is Catholicism that has erected this. It is one way to resolve the ongoing debate between science and faith about their respective roles and validity. The Catholic Church does not reject the findings of science, and on many occasions, Pope Benedict has spoken about how the two do not conflict. The issue is in applying the sceintific method to the question of God’s existence. As far as I know, that is the only area of NOMA for the Church.

I am sure others know more however about this area.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree with this statement to some extent.

Science is looking for answers, it looks for a more complete understanding of the universe. In doing so, it implicitly seeks to understand how God works.Science does not acknowledge this and many scientists are antagonistic to Theism in general and Catholicism in particular.

good point fran

 

[TheAtheist]

Wow! A lot of good responses (a lot of things to think about), and i’m unfortunately pressed for time.

I’m dying to address everything at once - however i’ve got a tight frame from now till Thanksgiving. So let me try to restate given all the ideas that have come up. (To be honest though, i thought i’d get a short response to this one and that the other thread i have up would be the “hot” one.)

I start with a quick analogy.

Hideki Yukawa (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Yukawa) was the Japanese theoretical physicist who discovered/postulated the Meson particle (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson)).

Let me avoid boring you all (and myself ) with the particle physics section of this presentation (something i would probably botch myself) and move directly to the heart of the matter.

Yukawa stated that the discovery of the Meson was a direct influence of his philosophical/religious commitment to Zen Buddhism.

Let me clarify this immediately:

1.) He is not saying that Zen Buddhism helped him psychologically. ie: “I was having a tough time and boy did that Satori meditation really help when i was stressed.”

2.) He is not saying that it was dropped out of the heavens, or that he made contact with the Dharma-kaya and it gave him the answer.

3.) What he was saying, which was lost on his Western colleagues at the time as Zen wasn’t really well known, was that the ideas of Zen - its cosmology, epistemological viewpoints, etc. served as a seed bed of inspiration to produce the piece of research in question.

Now from Yukawa’s viewpoint i’m sure he thought that this only further confirmed the truth of Zen, but for the purposes of this example that is not the important part.

What i would like to bring to attention is the nature of the interaction which would go something like:

Body of Zen Doctrine ----> Yukawa chews on it (Produces a Philosophy i suppose?)----> Brings Forth New understanding of World/Scientific Concept

I’m going to stress this part - In this particular case, it wasn’t that Yukawa was a scientist who discovered something, and oh by the way he happens to be a Rinzai (or Soto?) Zen practitioner.

Rather that his worldview INSPIRED him.

Of all the Christian denominations that ever were (and probably ever will be) your Church has shown time and time again that you can do that in spades…

Celestial Hierarchy and Mystical Theology : Pseudo-dionysus the Areopagite

The Sacred Cosmos: Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific Conversations in the Twelfth Century School of Chartres (Peter Ellard, 2007)

Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science, (Stewart C. Easton)

The New Science and Jesuit Science: Seventeenth Century Perspectives (M. Feingold)

Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (Mordechai Feingold)

Ok, that’s all a very small small small section of a much larger history. And within the volumes above (given their specific time periods) the same path as Yukawa can be seen.

Christian Belief -------> Christian Thinker’s Philosophy inspired by said beliefs -----> Scientific Result

I repeat yet again, this isn’t a simple matter of

“Ho hum, i’m a chemist and i go to Church on Sundays.”

These people didn’t park their belief at the door of the lab/university. It played an ACTIVE ROLE in their articulation/contribution to the specific field they were working on - normally for you Catholics this tends to be Physics/Mechanics or Cosmology/Astronomy.

Now, some of my fellow atheists would undoubtedly raise their hand and say “Yeah…but they were all wrong.”

To which i can only respond, “But this science right? At the time every one thought they were right, the tools that were available confirmed us such, ergo it was reasonable to believe.”

Of course, they say this with the privilege of history. Talking about the Sunday football game on Monday morning is easy.

Frankly, i also find it an insult. How could Aristotle or Newton even conceive of quantum physics? They gave it their best shot and came up with the best possible for their time period.

But back to the point - i guess you can say this is what i was talking about, or trying to arrive at.

This isn’t a simple “I do — You react” relationship. Nor is this the “Dude who is a scientist and just happens to be a Catholic.”

This is currently what the Neuroscience people are currently doing with the Tibetan Buddhists.

This is…true inspiration at its finest.

And past the last great Jesuit push in the 18th-19th centuries, there doesn’t seem to be much of that anymore.

However, as Equites Christi pointed out, i might be asking for a wee bit too much. The potential pool of R&D candidates dropped like a rock.

And its not like i can go knocking on the Vatican doorstep asking for you folks to crank out another Thomas Aquinas.

 

[TheAtheist]

Now, given all the nice comments, there’s a hell of a lot more i can address. And your all going to have to wait about 2-3 weeks on that one. But a few points stick out.

1.) I would argue that since at least 100 years after Christ, many thinkers in your Church had a very firm commitment to understanding what they conceived as the “Book of Nature.”

Now this isn’t necessarily one of the Missions of the Church, but the strain of thought was always there.

I mean, they weren’t engaging in natural philosophy just for the fun of it. And Hugh of St. Victor didn’t hang around a bunch of his Muslim counterparts to translate Aristotle for his health and benefit.

2.) Mindsets are limiting. In choosing a set of options, you eliminate the others.

It might have taken us decades or maybe even more than that to find the Meson particle - all because the um, “more traditional” physicists were not drinking from Yukawa’s well.

We’re not drinking from yours either. Hint hint.

Well now, i’ve got to run (and i’ve only gotten to 2! :sigh: ).

Catch you all in a bit. (and i will have those references from First Things when i get back from the trip).

 

[JDaniel]

But when i read statements like this:

It saddens me…because once upon a time you folks WERE the competent ones.

And i find this exceedingly bizzare that I’m the one saying it!

Look, if Buddhism’s big thing is the Mind (or some sects of Buddhism), i would argue that Catholicism’s big thing has been Physics/Cosmology.

Case in point with your reference to the Vatican Observatory, which is a modern outcome of over 2,000 years of thinking about such matters. Kudos!

Your forebearers were DARING about these things. They were more than willing to pick up questions of Ontological, Metaphysical, or Epistemological importance.

But to paraphrase a commentator from First Things, firstthings.com/, which is a “Theology Meets the World” ecumenical journal with very strong Catholic influences - “Theology has contracted.”

Don’t get me wrong - there are tons of Catholic intellectuals. Many of them doing many good things in the fields of humanities, social science etc.

But there’s a level of quiet now coming from the domains of science and natural philosophy. There seems to be less of a drive to even broach questions of this sort at all.

The only domain of philosophy i excluded was Ethics. I did that for a very simple reason.

Let’s personify things for a second. I go out and discover/make something/do something. I come back home and tell you about it. You pass judgment over whether what i did was right or wrong.

Now think about that for a second - what kind of relationship is that?

I do → You react —> I do —> You React. etc. etc.

That wasn’t always the nature of the relationship.

Once upon time you folks INSPIRED.

Now its like you’ve decided to erect the great Gouldian NOMA barrier (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Nonoverlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29) and refuse to come out and play anymore.

Leaving us with your “unruly cousins.”

I can offer a reason. And, further say that we will, until, perhaps, we get to know you, distrust you and your intentions. I am really not trying to be mean in any way whatsoever. We appreciate that we stand out in the crowd; we appreciate that people of intelligence have discovered this.

To return to my opening statement, you must realize that not only has the Church been a leader in the natural sciences for centuries, but also, we have led the Christian world with regard to philosophy, theology, a general science of nature, inquiries into mysticism, inquiries into miracles, psychology, human happiness, medicine and others.

However, so long as we produced something scientific, and that thing produced “worked”, we were not insulted. When, on the other hand, we produced, or rather propositioned anything to do with our spirituality and our duty to disseminate such, for obvious reasons, we have been attacked.

We know that, however you won’t agree with this, it is Satan himself that is behind this very frontal attack, but, when we admit that publically, we are attacked again and said to be like the Protestants you mentioned in your post. Can you see any other institution that is being so viciously pilloried on a moment to moment basis? You probably don’t “see” this from your perspective, because you are on the outside.

This has, unfortunately, I think, caused us to take a much too, but, much necessary defensive posture. The continuous assailing of our walls and gates, has left of little time and little desire but to hunker down and fight the war. And make no mistake, we are in a War, a war for survival. Bring down the Catholic Church and all else of any worth falls with us.

As an example, a major battlefront is over the issue of abortion. I wrongly call this an “issue”. It is not only a “gate”, but also, it is the Main Gate" of assault by enemies of the Church. Know that we will throw down any other assignment handed to us, even for the betterment of mankind through some great medical research, to try to save a single life in this arena. That, sir, is extraordinarily time and resource consumming.

So, we were instrumental in carrying the rest of the world, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. The Church wanted to help where ever she could. In so doing, we strengthened our opponents and left ourselves a bit weaker for the effort.

In the long run, the intellectualism found among us will be the loss most missed, although no one outside of us may ever see that. So, what’s left to do?

Respectfully,
JD

 

[AndyF]

TheAtheist:

Yes. Through the graces of knowledge and wisdom imparted especially to Catholics in the form of Fruits of the Church, all people,Atheists included, reap the benefits of God’s gifts to Catholics. The result creates an opportunity to learn through gratefulness.

Those who know this, and choose to bask in the benefits rather than to respond to His call, will need to explain their inaction eventually.

Andy

 

[reggieM]

Now its like you’ve decided to erect the great Gouldian NOMA barrier

It depends on how one views “modern science”. If it is, as I see it, built on materialist philosophy (essentially atheistic) and populated by biased professors who are seeking to destroy belief in God and the supernatural, then there won’t be much that Catholicism can offer to such people.

Unlike Buddhism, Catholicism posits a supernatural order. God actually “does things” which affect the universe.

I realize that most of the evolutionist-Catholics (all of them) on CAF disagree with me, but I believe that the only thing that modern Catholicism contributes to modern science is a “me tooism” where belief in the supernatural is dismissed or shelved, and when all else fails, a NOMA barrier is erected.

Those same evolutionists (and I suspect the OP as well) more violently disagree with me that the devout Catholic, Michael Behe’s exploration of the possiblity of intelligent causes acting at the biochemical level is one of the greatest scientific advances in modern times. He makes it clear that his proposals emerged from his Catholic Faith – and these were unique, original ideas, not merely “finding scientific things”.

I don’t want to side track this thread with arguments about Mr. Behe. I assume that opinions were requested and I’ve given mine. If you like it, great. If not, please do not derail the discussion with the usual attacks and ridicule.

But I do believe that Mr. Behe has offered an original, Catholic inspired contribution. The OP was looking for the “give and take” with Faith and Science, and I believe the clash that one can see with the response to Michael Behe, spawing many lengthy debates may be what the OP was seeking also.

Or perhaps the quest is to find a contribution by Catholicism that is indistinguishable from what atheistic-science offers and which meets the standards of that community.

I don’t know how a complete denial of the supernatural can be fully compatible with a religion that places the supernatural at the foundation.

Again, I didn’t post this to start yet another argument. If you passionately disagree or want to “refute” my opinions, could you PM me about that and leave this thread focused on what the OP is looking for?

Thanks.